We use data from three large public universities in Washington to connect interest in education at the time of university application to eventual applications to teacher education programs (TEPs). Not surprisingly, given the demographics of the teacher workforce, female, White, and students with lower SAT scores are substantially more likely to be interested in education at the time of university application, but only about a third of students who enter college expressing an interest in becoming a teacher apply to a TEP within four years. And even conditional on expressed interest at the point of university application, female, White, and students with lower SAT scores are more likely to apply to TEPs within four years, all else equal.

This study investigated the underexplored topic of teacher preparation program admissions processes by interviewing faculty and analyzing program documents. We investigated how 31 K-12 mathematics and science teacher preparation programs (MSTPPs) and faculty attend to diversity, equity, inclusion, and social and racial justice (DEIJ). Specific foci included applicant recruitment and selection, components of applications (e.g., forms, essays, and interviews), and how applicants' DEIJ-related information and orientations factor into admissions. We found that all MSTPPs participating in the study collected information related to DEIJ (e.g., applicants' ethnoracial backgrounds, citizenship), and all interviewed faculty expressed an interest in increasing the diversity of applicants and admitted students. Faculty expressed preferences for applicants who evidenced positive DEIJ orientations, such as recognizing social and ethnoracial injustices, but at the same time, differences were evident in how MSTPPs and faculty attended to DEIJ. Considerations, implications, and dilemmas for teacher preparation programs and faculty are discussed.

This qualitative study examines the information collected about applicants to mathematics or science teacher preparation programs (MSTPPs) and how university faculty perceive and value this information in admissions decisions. Based on document review and interviews with MSTPP faculty and admissions directors, we found that broad measures of mathematics and science content background (e.g., achievement test scores, past mathematics and science courses taken) were used more frequently than information on applicants-specific mathematics and science content knowledge and dispositions. In many cases, application components (such as interviews and personal essay statements) were perceived by faculty to be conducive to surfacing applicants-content knowledge and dispositions; however, they were not constructed or employed in a way that afforded the obtainment of this information. We highlight salient examples of MSTPPs-collection and use of information related to mathematics and science and discuss implications for TPP admissions processes.

Research on argumentation as part of students’ ways of thinking in STEM is currently limited. The purpose of this paper is to utilize an argumentation framework to illustrate trends in student thinking that surface during STEM-based learning activity. We provide details on our analytic coding process followed by results from our analysis of four learning episodes in collaborative, non-formal, STEM-based learning environments. Our findings illustrate that student thinking, as evidenced in student argumentation practices, followed certain trends. Specifically, student claims were characterized by their explicit, informal, certain, and novel nature. In-the-moment activities, such as observation and manipulation, were the primary sources of evidence used. Finally, the primary locus of reasoning to support the claims came from the students, not an authority or more knowledgeable other, as the students made regular use of experience and drew on their own personal authority. In addition to these trends, our analysis revealed three important characteristics of the students’ learning experiences as related to student thinking. These included how the task influenced the disciplinary nature of the thinking, students’ use of in-the-moment evidence, and the role of challenge claims. Implications on curriculum and instruction are provided, including a call for learning environments that encourage risk in support of student claim making and learning activities that promote and build on the use of in-the-moment evidence.

Calls for more integrated approaches to STEM have reached every sector of education, including formal and nonformal spaces, from early childhood to tertiary levels. The goal of STEM education as an integrated effort shifts beyond acquiring knowledge in any one or combination of STEM disciplines and, instead, focuses on designing solutions to complex, contextual problems that transcend disciplinary boundaries. To realize this goal, we first need to understand what transdisciplinary STEM might actually look and sound like in action, particularly in regard to the nature of student thinking. This paper addresses that need by investigating student reasoning during nonformal STEM-focused learning experiences. We chose four learning episodes, all involving elementary students working on engineering design tasks, to highlight the various ways transdisciplinary thinking might arise or not. In our analysis, we highlight factors that may have supported or hindered the integration of mathematical, scientific, technological, and engineering ways of thinking. For example, the nature of the task, materials provided, and level of adult support influenced the nature of student reasoning. Based on our findings, we provide suggestions for how to promote transdisciplinary thinking in both formal and nonformal spaces.

The goal of this paper is to share an analytic framework for understanding Students’ Ways of Thinking (SWoT) in STEM-rich learning environments. Before revealing our refined coding framework, we detail the nature of our collaborations and the various analytic decisions that led to its formation. These collaborations supported our collective ability to make sense of SWoT and produce a more coherent perspective that can be operationalized in STEM contexts. Our analytic framework foregrounds student claim-making and the related evidence and reasoning used in support. Specific commentary about the development and application of each coding category is provided, including examples of student data and rationale for related coding decisions. Our analytic framework, and discussion of its formation, can help educators, curriculum makers, and policymakers make use of SWoT in the development of meaningful and effective STEM education.

STEM education should be grounded in our knowledge of how students think in STEM-focused learning environments. However, little is currently known regarding specific types of thinking in these contexts. We explore the theoretical notion of STEM Ways of Thinking (SWoT) in interdisciplinary learning situations. Our primary focus is not on the curricular content of STEM education, but rather on the nature of the cognitive activity at play during STEM-focused activity. We give particular focus to students' claim making and reasoning during interdisciplinary STEM activity. Our framework focuses on the disciplines of science, engineering, and mathematics. While these disciplines have vastly different practices and epistemologies, we argue that claim making and reasoning provide an avenue for considering student thinking at their intersections. A brief literature review of SWoT is provided that illustrates trends and limitations amongst current theories and studies. After a detailed discussion of our own theoretical perspective of SWoT, we provide an illustrative learning segment to explore the explanatory and analytic power of our theoretical perspective. Implications of our work on curriculum and instruction are provided.

This case study explores the degree to which mathematical knowledge for teaching can be developed by prospective teachers in a multi-site teacher education context. The majority of the article focuses on a description of the target middle level mathematics endorsement program, including distance-based instructional norms, community building efforts, and tasks and activities intended to support the generation of mathematical knowledge for teaching. All preservice teachers enrolled in the program were invited to participate in the study. Means on Likert-scale survey items were calculated at three points in time over one year to determine changes. Open-ended survey items and focus group interviews were analyzed qualitatively to supplement the quantitative findings. These data support the result that middle level preservice teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching can be positively impacted by a middle level mathematics teacher education program. Two broader implications are provided: 1) teacher education experiences can have positive impact on prospective teachers’ development, and 2) this development is possible in a multi-site teacher education setting. Possible implications on international teacher education efforts are provided.

This chapter is an exploration into a variety of theoretical frameworks for studying mathematics teacher collaboration. Drawing on Little (1990) for a working definition of the term collaboration, I identify two themes (collaborative processes and unit of analysis) to frame the work. An extensive review of the literature with regard to research frameworks related to mathematics teacher collaboration is then provided, with particular emphases on teachers' use of data, teacher inquiry, teacher talk, communities of practice, professional learning communities, distributed leadership, and social network theory. Roles and implications for mathematics teacher educators are then explored, including those for both research and practice. This chapter allows for a critical examination of the approaches which have driven research in this area, as well as a better understanding of the nature of past results and possible future directions.

Despite the increasing number of inclusive STEM schools, little is known about the cultural dimensions that influence STEM curriculum and instruction within these schools. This paper describes research conducted at three inclusive STEM schools, one each at the elementary, middle, and high school level. We explored similarities and differences in cultural dimensions across the schools with specific attention to how these differentially influence teachers’ perceptions and enactment of STEM curriculum and instruction across the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Our cross-case analysis revealed structural aspects (school vision, community partnerships, course scheduling, and testing pressures) as well as professional orientations (i.e., instructional practices, interdisciplinary collaboration, and teacher content knowledge) that appear particularly important to student learning experiences at each grade level. Navigating these factors of STEM school culture requires teachers to not only be knowledgeable but also to draw on a professional orientation that encourages collaboration and risk-taking. We discuss implications for teacher education and STEM school development.

We explore the epistemological issues that arise when considering STEM as a curricular and instructional construct. Our approach is somewhat unique in that we are not focused on the curricular or instructional boundaries of STEM education, but consider the nature of the cognitive activity at play during STEM-focused activity, with an emphasis on mathematical thinking. We focus specifically on the epistemological underpinnings of mathematics and other STEM disciplines, and the possibility of an epistemology of STEM as a curricular construct. The im lica ion on den STEM a of hinking (SWoT) a e di c ed in de ail f om a theoretical and empirical lens. Future research directions are identified.

Background: Despite increasing attention to STEM education worldwide, there is considerable uncertainty as to what constitutes STEM education and what it means in terms of curriculum and student outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the commonalities and variations in educators' conceptualizations of STEM education. Sensemaking theory framed our analysis of ideas that were being selected and retained in relation to professional learning experiences in three contexts: two traditional middle schools, a STEM-focused school, and state-wide STEM professional development. Concept maps and interview transcripts from 34 educators holding different roles were analyzed: STEM and non-STEM teachers, administrators, and STEM professional development providers. Results: Three themes were included on over 70% of the 34 concept maps: interdisciplinary connections; the need for new, ambitious instructional practices in enacting a STEM approach; and the engagement of students in realworld problem solving. Conceptualizations of STEM education were related to educational contexts, which included the STEM education professional development activities in which educators engaged. We also identified differences across educators in different roles (e.g., non-STEM teacher, administrator). Two important attributes of STEM education addressed in the literature appeared infrequently across all contexts and role groups: students' use of technology and the potential of STEM-focused education to provide access and opportunities for all students' successful participation in STEM. Conclusions: Given the variety of institutionalized practices and school contexts within which STEM education is enacted, we are not convinced that a single worldwide definition of STEM education is critical. What we do see as essential is that those working in the same system explore the common elements that are being attributed to STEM education and co-construct a vision that provides opportunities for all their students to attain STEM-related goals. This is especially important in the current reform contexts related to STEM education. We also see that common conceptions of STEM education appear across roles and contexts, and these could provide starting points for these discussions. Explicitly identifying the ideas educators are and are not selecting and retaining can inform professional learning activities at local and larger scales.

To support a growth mindset in students, consider components involving cognitive, social, and emotional aspects so that students can work within their zone of productive stuggle.

Middle level students' engagement with mathematics can be an opening or a barrier to future opportunities. Enrollment in advanced mathematics and science courses as well as career choices are linked to students' mathematical success at the middle grades level. Hence, teacher preparation that supports high quality mathematics instruction has never been more important. In this chapter, we examine the structures and processes of a multisite middle level mathematics teacher preparation program. The program consists of five courses taught to four different sites via teleconferencing technology. The majority of students are primarily enrolled in an undergraduate elementary teacher certification program and seeking an add-on middle level mathematics endorsement. Based on our analysis of survey data, we report three specific student outcomes: the development of a learning community within and across sites, the development of various aspects of content knowledge for teaching, and the development of three core instructional practices. We also provide implications related to the importance of community in a distance environment, particularly in the context of middle level teacher preparation.

Given the current emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education and its key attributes, middle school is an optimal time to implement STEM-based curricula. However, the interdisciplinary and open-ended nature of STEM projects often makes implementation difficult. In this article, we describe a professional development project aimed at preparing middle grades teachers to implement STEM Design Challenges with their students. We discuss the resources that supported project teachers in navigating identified implementation challenges and provide an example of a sixth-grade team's efforts to engage all learners in STEM experiences. Recommendations and examples in this article can support other middle school teams working to enact STEM education.

We describe and analyze a professional development (PD) model that involved a partnership among science, mathematics and education university faculty, science and mathematics coordinators, and middle school administrators, teachers, and students. The overarching project goal involved the implementation of interdisciplinary STEM Design Challenges (DCs). The PD model targeted: (a) increasing teachers’ content and pedagogical content knowledge in mathematics and science; (b) helping teachers integrate STEM practices into their lessons; and (c) addressing teachers’ beliefs about engaging underperforming students in challenging problems. A unique aspect involved low-achieving students and their teachers learning alongside each other as they co-participated in STEM design challenges for one week in the summer. Our analysis focused on what teachers came to value about STEM DCs, and the challenges in and affordances for implementing DCs. Two significant areas of value for the teachers were students’ use of scientific, mathematical, and engineering practices and motivation, engagement, and empowerment by all learners. Challenges associated with pedagogy, curriculum, and the traditional structures of the schools were identified. Finally, there were four key affordances: (a) opportunities to construct a vision of STEM education; (b) motivation to implement DCs; (c) ambitious pedagogical tools; and, (d) ongoing support for planning and implementation. This article features a Research to Practice Companion Article . Please click on the supporting information link below to access.

Background This study is about teachers’ collective activity during the development and initial year of a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-focused school in the USA. The target school of this study was inclusive, as it sought admission of students from varying backgrounds and levels of ability. Drawing from narrative inquiry and case study methodologies, we examine the collective work of the teachers in the target school from 6 months prior to school start-up through the end of the first year. We focus on visioning, collaboration, and curriculum development in our analysis of the teachers’ collective work. Results We analyze the collective sense-making activity of the teaching staff regarding key facets of the start-up process. While the teachers received a variety of supports, including time and resources for collaborating, there was a lack of specific support for the conceptualization and creation of multi-disciplinary, STEM-focused projects. The risk-taking and collaborative actions of the teachers led to three specific instructional approaches that were continuously adjusted to respond to the evolving vision of the STEM-focused school. The teachers also solicited the needs and interests of their students and utilized these in curricular design and instruction, which promoted student buy-in and participation. By the end of the school year, a common vision for STEM-focused, project-based learning was emerging, but not solidified. Conclusions Our study confirms the power of doing and risk-taking in teacher development, particularly in the ways in which teacher collaboration advanced curriculum and instruction in this STEM-focused school context. The intellectual supports that teachers require in this context are numerous and must be carefully identified and nurtured, and the subsequent teacher activity must be monitored as contextual shifts occur and sources of pressure (e.g., external learning standards) become relevant. The teachers’ role is a complex mixture of learner, risk-taker, inquirer, curriculum designer, negotiator, collaborator, and teacher. Instructional and curricular supports require substantial time to synthesize and eventually enact, and more than a few months prior to school start-up are necessary to fully engage and prepare teachers for the collective task of visioning, collaborating, and planning the curriculum and instruction of an innovative school.